Thank you Janis and the leadership team for providing this draft approach for phase 2. I think this is an excellent start. I have some thoughts/feedback to share after giving this a review.
-
The objective (first bullet slide 2) is more accurately to develop and agree on “policy recommendations”… rather than “rules and requirements”. This might be semantics and our policy recommendations may get specific as to the
rules and requirements needed, but I think it’s an important distinction to make.
-
At the start of our phase 2 work we should be in information gathering mode. A few things come to mind that we should consider.
-
At the start of phase 1 we asked for early input from SOs and ACs. I thought this was beneficial in informing our early work and I suggest we consider if something similar could be done for phase 2.
-
Is there any training or education that working group members should receive? Early in phase 1 it was arranged for working group members to take an online GDPR class. I don’t have anything specific in mind, but its worth asking
the question if there is something similar that working group members would benefit from for phase 2.
-
Briefings from experts – We had an opportunity to hear from Becky Burr and ask her questions as a privacy officer and ICANN board member in a session that I think was very well received. Are there experts we could hear from for
phase 2? We’ve discussed previously asking for a briefing from the RPM working group and the Privacy/Proxy IRT. Now might be the time to try and schedule those.
-
Requests to ICANN org – in our phase 1 report we had a couple of asks of ICANN org. Some of these were intended to provide additional information to inform our phase 2 deliberations. We should follow up on those phase 1 asks
and also consider if there are other asks of ICANN org relevant to phase 2.
-
At the ICANN Barcelona meeting there was a high interest panel session on the phase 1 ePDP. Kurt facilitated the sessions with working group members serving as panelists. For many in the ICANN community this was the first opportunity
to get detailed information about how the ePDP was going. The session was well attended and we received a lot of positive feedback. Looking at the schedule, the timing of ICANN 66 might be good to provide a similar update to the community on phase 2.
I look forward to hearing from others and discussing on our 16 May call.
Best,
Marc
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>
On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 5:39 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; gnso-epdp-team@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] RE: For your review - Phase 2 Draft Approach
Apologies, it looks like the pdf conversion got rid of the ticks. We’ve replaced them with ‘X’ in the attached version.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
Hi,
Looks like Janis and staff have been busy!
I have a question about Slide 7. There are no “X’s” or ticks in the columns for WS 1 and WS 2.
So I can’t tell what this means. Are we proposing (I hope) that WS1 meets on Tuesdays and WS2 meets on Thursdays? Or is this still open-ended?
--MM
Sending on behalf of Janis Karklins
Dear EPDP Team,
Following last week’s meeting, the leadership team and staff support have worked together on developing a draft approach for tackling phase 2. We hope this strikes a balance between the different views expressed
and will form the basis for a detailed work plan with concrete milestones and deliverables. You will find attached a couple of slides that outline our current thinking in further detail, but here are some points I want to emphasize:
- This is a draft approach for discussion and review. Based on your input prior and our discussion during next week’s meeting, we will further iterate and detail our approach,
the proposed work plan and accompanying timeline. This draft is for discussion that, hopefully, will lead to a consensual agreement.
- For the purpose of our exercise it is important to use definitions and terminology with the same understanding. We propose to develop and use working definitions without prejudice
to consensual outcome. Final definitions can only be developed once the Team has finalized its work and agreed on its recommendations.
- Based on the Team’s feedback in relation to the request to form a small team to engage with ICANN Org, I suggest to keep a plenary setting which will avoid creating a separate
structure and ensure that everyone is part of discussion. Nevertheless, as this work on obtaining legal certainty is ongoing, I would propose that we deal with the charter questions and list of issues identified on slide 5 in an agnostic manner. In other
words, we should refrain at the outset to deliberate on whether or not a System for Standardized Disclosure should be centralized or not, but rather we should focus on the commonalities and where needed identify that differentiation may be required depending
on which model is ultimately determined to be legally compliant with GDPR and workable. I also expect that this approach would help inform the engagement of ICANN org and DPAs.
- I appreciate that some of you may consider the timeline ambitious, but I’ve heard from almost everyone that the work on a System for Standardized Disclosure is a priority and
as such I am committed to setting a target date for us to work towards. This will require your support and dedication. I am pretty confident I can count on that.
I look forward to receiving your feedback and would like to encourage you to focus your input on what, why and how things could or should be done differently, instead of simply saying that something cannot
be acceptable or should not be done.
Janis Karklins
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings@icann.org
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive
courses and visiting the GNSO
Newcomer pages.